Opinion
CR 22-mj-52
03-30-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KENT MEWS, Defendant.
ORDER
LAWRENCE L. PIERSOL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Counsel for Defendant Kent Mews has filed a Motion to Continue, Doc. 19, requesting a sixty (60) day continuance of all dates currently in force. The Government has no objection to the continuance request. After consideration of the file in this matter, the Court finds that failure to grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence and further that failure to grant the continuance would deny the public interest in bringing this case to trial in an orderly fashion. Further, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by continuing this trial outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial. For all of those reasons as well as those set forth in the Motion, IT IS ORDERED:
1. That Defendant Kent Mews' Motion to Continue, Doc. 19, is granted.
2. That all other motions as to Defendant herein be filed and served on or before May 18, 2022; that opposing counsel respond thereto on or before May 24, 2022; and that a hearing, if necessary, will be held before the Magistrate Judge in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, before May 31, 2022; and the Court will not consider a stock motion for leave to file further motions, however, the Court will consider a motion filed by a party after the deadline if the party can show good cause as to why the motion was late filed.
3. That June 6, 2022, is hereby set as the deadline for submission to the Court of any proposed plea agreement.
4. That all motions in limine shall be in writing and filed, together with proposed instructions, with the Court ten (10) working days before trial.
5. That the jury trial herein for Defendant shall commence in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, on Tuesday, July 19, 2022, with counsel to be present for motions in limine at 9:00 A.M., and with the jury to report at 9:30 A.M.
6. That the period of delay resulting from such continuance is excluded in computing the time within which the trial of the offense for the Defendant must commence, as the Court finds that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).